|
|
“I am Not Racist, but…”
Alex Kurtagic
June 7, 2009
Tomislav Sunic’s recent article,
Who is an Anti-Semite?,
brings to the fore an important question that has been insufficiently discussed
within our circles, and which must, nevertheless, be the complement to any
debate about White displacement and multiculturalism. That question is: How are
we to redefine our attitudes towards non-Whites in a context where Whites are
being forced to compete for resources under the gaze of a hostile elite?
As Sunic points out, in both Europe and America, White attitudes towards
Jews have come to be defined in modern times by mendacity and intellectual
servility. Faced with a political, academic, and media establishment — the
current masters of discourse — configured around a colossal concentration of
Jewish power, Whites have not only trained themselves to avoid Jewish wrath by
keeping any critical opinions about Jews to themselves, but they have also
learnt to curry Jewish favor by flaunting their admiration for Jewish
superiority and achievement, by piously demonstrating their conformity to
Semitically-correct cognitive structures, and by loudly championing Jewish
causes — even when these run directly counter to White interests. Sunic
correctly suggests that, in as much as this fuels Jewish hubris, such an
unhealthy relationship approaches a limit where it exists one crisis away from
detonating into violent anti-Semitism.
The phenomenon is not confined to Jews, however, because inasmuch as the
political, academic, and media discourse has come to be defined by a succession
of highly-influential
Jewish intellectual movements
that have over time discredited White racial consciousness and affirmation,
White mendacity and intellectual servility also permeate — just as unhealthily —
White relations with other racial groups. Thus we end up with a situation where,
out of fear of or a desire for favor from the present masters of discourse,
Whites dare not protest, and even applaud, their own displacement and
dispossession by a rainbow coalition of hair-trigger Blacks, thermonuclear
feminists, in-your-face homosexuals, vengefully reproductive Hispanics, and a
gallimaufry of
ethnically-motivated intellectual terrorists.
For Whites, such
a
state of affairs makes no tactical sense. Any relief or advantage that
Whites may gain now from dulcifying their racial adversaries will be more than
cancelled out if Whites end up an oppressed minority in their own traditional
homelands, with nowhere else left to run on planet Earth. It is infinitely
preferable to accept the discomfort of being called names now, because the more
time passes, the worse the consequences of appeasing the name-callers will
become, and the more radical the subsequent corrective measures will need to be
— if they are to have any chance of success. And even then, there is a
limit to how long we can postpone the unpleasantness, for the consequences of
appeasement will eventually become permanent and irreversible.
Of course, were it purely a matter of logic, we would easily win the
debate over White displacement and multiculturalism, because our arguments are
amply substantiated by science and history. The problem is, however, that we are
not dealing with rational processes: we are dealing with psychological processes
that stem from an innate human need for belonging and self-esteem, which have
been successfully exploited by the masters of discourse, and which are
notoriously impervious to logical argument.
Because self-esteem is largely dependent on social legitimization, humans
are unlikely to risk opprobrium without a pay-off that is both comparable in
character and superior in extent. This is particularly true of what I call
“respectable” Whites — status-conscious Whites whose self-esteem is dependent
upon meeting the accepted definition of respectable in a social context whose
moral tenets conform to the establishment formulation. Because “Respectable”
Whites will typically find any pay-off for pro-White dissidence either negative
or not immediately apparent, these “respectable” Whites will sooner buttress
their socially-sanctioned anti-White attitudes with absurd self-justificatory
sophistry and rationalizations than visibly defend their own collective racial
interests.
“Respectable” Whites are prevented by their fear of opprobrium from
accepting that there is nothing wrong with criticizing, or even disliking,
members of a particular racial group because they exhibit characteristics that
are in fact more common among that group.
Further, “respectable” Whites are conditioned by their fear of opprobrium
to forget that we all have our own individual preferences, and that no one can
possibly like everybody: After all, a great many people can be downright
irritating, obnoxious, stupid, embarrassing, and, sometimes, malevolent and
radically opposed to everything we hold dear. These Whites are prevented by
their fear of opprobrium from finding it natural that individuals, even if
likeable on a personal level, may well have interests that conflict with those
of Whites because of a group self-identification.
“Respectable” Whites are at present incapable of honesty in race
relations because they conflate criticizing or disliking entire groups of people
with rudeness, crudeness, ignorance, lack of culture, lack of intelligence,
moral turpitude, and psychiatric disorder. This is because the masters of
discourse, being excellent tacticians and consummate stylists, have very
effectively promoted that conflation both in academia and in the mass media of
news and entertainment, where racially-conscious Whites are persistently
portrayed as primitive nincompoops whose company no self-respecting, cultured,
intelligent person would ever seek or tolerate. The stereotype of the White
hillbilly from the American South, dysgenically inbred, gap-toothed, jug-eared,
and of negligible cranial cubicage, is a well-known — and socially acceptable —
weapon of mass embarrassment.
Media Image of Whites
Because the underlying psychological processes are irrational, the war
against White racial consciousness is waged on an infra-rational battlefield,
through a controlled flow of highly stylized images, memes, and sound bites. The
latter are readily identifiable, as they are invariably regurgitated — almost
word for word — every time a racial infraction has been committed: “There is no
place for racism in the 21st century”; “Hitler and the Nazis killed
six million Jews”; “Such views are abhorrent and I deplore them.”
None of these are logical or substantive arguments. Yet, together with
the progressive disappearance, slander, and stupidification of Whites in
big-budget film, television, and advertising, they comprise a semiotic strategy
that is integral to the Leftist anti-White project, and more effective than any
logical argument. As I have argued
before, mastery of
style trumps superiority of argument every time.
Effectively combating the anti-White mental poison will require us to
mirror our enemy’s tactics through the development of a semiotic strategy our
own — not for the enemy’s consumption, but for the emotional benefit of
the “respectable” Whites whom the enemy have so thoroughly terrorized. Only then
will the positive pay-off of pro-White dissidence become apparent to this
self-effacing constituency. The data and the arguments already exist, and they
are quite substantive; what is missing is the shiny packaging.
In the current cultural climate, in a society where power has its basis on
money, it might seem impossible to elaborate a convincing semiotic strategy with
which to sell pro-White dissidence to “respectable” Whites. When the masters of
discourse have the power to frustrate the achievement of academic, professional,
social, and economic status (i.e., the usual sources of social legitimization
upon which self-esteem largely depends), attempting to suggest that incurring
the wrath of these masters is likely to pay off might justifiably appear
unrealistic and naïve. Few have the stomach to be martyrs or impecunious
revolutionaries.
Yet, the fact is that Whites still possess a considerable demographic advantage,
they still concentrate an enormous amount of talent, and they still control most
of the wealth within their own traditional homelands: Enough opportunities exist
within alternative networks, therefore, to remain economically active, and even
enjoy material security, without subservience to the present political,
academic, and media establishment.
Moreover, there are plenty of alternative networks — call them subcultures —
that have successfully grown in demographic presence, economic power, and
cultural influence, despite being defined, in some cases, by radically
anti-establishment ideologies. The Black Metal music subculture, wherein I
operate a record label, is an excellent example. The Neo-Folk music subculture
is another. And the Martial Industrial music subculture is yet another.
All, it
should be noted, possess well-defined and highly stylized semiotic systems. And
while the latter are informed by ideology, it is their auditory and visual
appeal that first gains a following.
Von Thronstahl / Fascination
—
“Return Your Revolt into
Style”
Most importantly, however, any semiotic strategy that we develop can
easily exploit the fact that dissident subcultures confer upon its members
feelings of intellectual and moral superiority.
This stems from their being in a select minority that possesses information that
is unknown within (and is often too harrowing for) a self-deluded and mendacious
mainstream. This already applies within pro-White activism and related circles
(and has also
long characterized Jewish intellectual and political movements),
but in our case it has not been self-consciously stylized and repurposed as a
marketing tool — not since the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Unity Mitford in Munich, 1937. Clad in a Fascistoid, Futurist style.
Finally, and as contradictory as it might seem, given the fact that
pro-White activism aspires to achieve mainstream status, any semiotic strategy
that we develop must emphasise elitism and exclusivity. These values are closely
associated with the idea of belonging to a dissident subculture with access to
secret knowledge. They are also highly compatible with the worldviews —
Nietzschean, Conservative Revolutionary, Radical Traditionalist — prevalent
among racially conscious Whites.
The integration of these values into a stylized semiotic system is essential if
the latter is to successfully capture the imagination of “respectable” Whites
who otherwise would rather arrest their continuing displacement and
dispossession. It makes people feel good when they belong to something special,
and making something special necessitates a semioticized system of status levels
and barriers to entry that recognises worthiness and achievement but is not open
to everyone. Why otherwise do so many in democratic societies — democratic
societies that loudly proclaim their commitment to equality — voluntarily create
and subject themselves to authoritarian structures, eagerly making financial
sacrifices and enduring all manner of trials and humiliations as they strive to
attain membership in an exclusive
club, lodge, circle, or society?
The need to market themselves with a view to improving performance in
electoral contests has forced pro-White political parties like the
BNP,
Jobbik,
Vlaams Belang,
and the
NPD to improvise
their own semiotic laboratories. In capitalist economies, however, where people
define themselves according to what
Jean Baudrillard
called “the system of objects,” the valorizing of Whiteness needs to be encoded
in a wide range of high-quality, visually-distinct, style-conscious, and
ideologically-informed commercial products, so that their consumers may surround
themselves with a feel-good message of self-affirmation while the designers and
manufacturers of these products enhance the economic power and social status of
racially conscious Whites. In as much as these products will necessitate an
alternative consumer media within which to advertize them and alternative
advertizing agencies to design the advertisements, the pro-White message could
well develop into a marketable proposition.
The end product to aim for is a parallel universe, comprised of
alternative institutions, media, and markets, that legitimates Whiteness and is
poised for a cultural reconquista once the present establishment is
sufficiently weakened by its own cultural bankruptcy and corruption.
So long as we persist in relying solely on logical argument and in
dismissing style as a superficial pursuit, however, we will remain a clique of
middle aged, angry White men, slanderously cartoonified by our enemies in the
derisory manner that best suits their purpose. Our enemies became masters of the
discourse by first being masters of style; they understood that humans would
rather look good and feel good and be accepted in a social context than maintain
a factually correct position. So long as we fail to match our enemy’s astute
understanding of the irrational urges that motivate human behaviour, we will
remain on course to be remembered in future histories as the extinct human race
that always apologized for
itself with the timid preface, “I am not racist,
but…”
Alex Kurtagic (
Permanent link:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-NotRacist.html
